Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/DiamondHeadCrater

Diamond Head Crater


I've never submitted a picture to FPC before, so sorry if I screw up! This is a rim-to-rim panorama of the inside of the Diamond Head crater, in Hawaii. Like the caption says, you can see the city, the ocean, and the crater's belly...besides which, I just think it's a relatively artistic piece. Let me know what to fix.

Appears in the Diamond Head, Hawaii article. I took the picture. Thanks!

fpwannabe
 * Nominate and support (obviously). - Cathryn 15:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutral - I don't like the people on the right hand side. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 16:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Neat photo, but the man on the left is a bit distracting. However, I love the way you captured the height of the mountains! Beautiful photo!
 * Comment - With all the controversy concerning Sockpuppets in voting on images, I checked the photographer's recent edits and found about 20 requests for votes placed on other user pages, see [here]. Is this kind of active campaigning for nominations acceptable on FPCs?   SteveHopson 17:09, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 'Oppose People on the right side are distracting. If you cut them out then you cant see the whole crater. -Ravedave 17:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|15px]] Oppose - People. &mdash;Vanderdecken&there4; &int;  &xi;  &phi;   17:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak support - Obviously, the people on the right may seem to get in the way, but I disagree. Diamond Head is a tourist attraction, and there is nothing wrong with people being there.  See here on how you can climb Diamond Head.  Anyways, this picture clearly shows the National Guard facilities in the crater, Kapiolani Community College right behind it, the Pacific Ocean on the right, and the Diamond Head Lighthouse on bottom right corner, which are important.--Endroit 17:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The image is informative, but not particularly FP-worthy, especially given the presence of the people on the right. -- moondigger 18:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The people ruin this image. --Pharaoh Hound 19:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Why do people ruin an image, while plants and animals don't? It's a double standard! :) &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2006-06-17 19:21
 * Support. This picture is absolutely beautiful! I think the people add to it-they offer a sort of contrast to the far off coast. Dessie
 * Above user is "Dessie" is suspected sockpuppet Butterlips --Mad Max 22:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Above user "ButterLips"/"Dessie" is a confirmed sockpuppet. --Aude ( talk | contribs ) 21:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The colors are washed out. The focal length, while impression, deprives the photo of depth. One doesn't know whether waikiki is two or twenty miles away. Color correction could help this. However, in this state, it looks like the work of a point-and-shoot. ... aa:talk 22:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose It's an alright photo Cathryn, however, it seems more like a family vacation picture than anything else. I mean, it isn't like it was impossible NOT to photograph the people. If it weren't for the people I'd probably support it. By the way, silly question I know, but I have to ask; does the young lady in yellow know you're putting her face up on an encyclopedia? --Mad Max 22:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Support I don't really like some of the people, but everything else is also pretty good and informative...I think. -- Alphachimp   talk  22:49, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose People are just too prominent in the short. say1988 01:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose It would be FP material if it didn't have the people in it. --Geoffrey Gibson 04:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose The picture seems somewhat blurry to me. This could just be my monitor though. Otherwise I think it's pretty good. --Nebular110 05:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose Same opinions as Geoffrey Gibson and Nebular110. WikiSlasher 12:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose This photo is blurry, the highlights in the sky/ocean at the top are blown out, the colors aren't that particularly striking (the greens and yellows are very flat), and then we've got the Peterson Family from Tulsa wandering around on the right. There are likely dozens of other pictures from Hawaii out there that are far more striking than this one. --Nilington 16:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Support - I have hiked that trip to the top of the rim and the woman and child make the photograph. (If I had set up the shot I would have hired a model to do just that.)  The hike to the top involves narrow climbs, a bizzarre one-person/one-way passage through a crack in the concrete walls at the top and the experience includes other climbers like the one in this photograph.  Strong strong support. -  T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  18:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: This picture appears to have been taken by a 180-degree panorama lens from approximately this position facing east-northeast, using this camera. Click on the photo (twice) or here, to see the picture in its original size.  I commend Cathryn for her ingenuity in choosing this position and angle with this lens.  May I ask professional photographers what exactly is lacking in this picture, and what can be done to take better pictures worthy of FP from this position atop Diamond Head?--Endroit 21:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, image quality is lacking, the horizon is not straight and is partially cropped out of the frame. Those things are major problems in my opinion. It isn't an absolutely terrible photo, but it is hardly high quality either. Since you ask how it could be improved, I would suggest that a better quality camera is used (I don't want to sound elitist but there is a point where image quality from cameras is quite relevent. The image is reasonably high resolution but it is extremely soft and undetailed - you could downsample it by half and probably lose very little in the way of detail) and, if it wasn't done in the first place, take the photos in portrait format rather than landscape. That would give you a wider angle of view vertically and would avoid cutting off the horizon. Finally, better perspective correction would avoid a curved horizon. Some photo stitching programs do this better than others, so I would suggest using a high quality stitcher. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 21:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Just a bit too low in quality. I'm not too phased by the people but it doesn't enhance the image either in my opinion. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 21:37, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Nice view!! -- mo -- (Talk | #info | [[image:Flag of Saudi Arabia.svg|22px]] ) 21:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Opposed Curved horizon kills it for me. --Janke | Talk 22:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose but the girl is fantastic--Givern 18:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|15px]] Weak Oppose - The people are the only real interest.--James 21:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose I wonder if mam and kids know they're on wiki, spoils the encyclopedic value anyway. -Aled D 21:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose Who's the babe? ~MDD4696 03:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose The tiny people down the bottom right would be ok - but not the massively prominent woman, kid, and guy with his back to us. You'd think the photo was about them. Otherwise, great photo - a real shame. Stevage 08:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose While on the one hand it is an impressive shot and it captures the beauty of DH wonderfully, I agree that the quality is not what I would consider featured picture status, and the people are extremely distracting. The argument that it is a tourist spot is valid - however if that were the intent of the capture I would have imagined tourists being further in the background, rather than the focal foreground.  I don't like the lack of depth, either. Perhaps I will edit the image and repost it. Keakealani 19:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|15px]] Oppose - Quality is not that great; over exposure; reflection of sunlight; disorienting horizon distortions; cloud shadows obstruct view of the crater itself, and people do not contribute anything to purpose of the image. Also the caption is incorrect, but this can be changed easily. There is no city of Waikīkī, Waikīkī is a neighborhood in the city of Honolulu. Also Waikīkī is not shown in the picture, as it is located to the west and not the north. Sudachi 02:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * FYI: Actually, about 10 buildings of eastern Waikiki, including Liliuokalani Gardens is visible on the far left.  Since this is a panorama image, the left edge is in the north-northwest direction and the right edge is in the south-southeast direction.--Endroit 03:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Honolulu, Oahu would be redundant, since the entire island is Honolulu county anyway. Since it's not using a formal placename address ('Waikīkī, Hawaii' would be incorrect, for example) I don't think it's technically incorrect in the caption. Keakealani 01:53, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Support. The picture would be just plain dull if it wasn't for the Unknown Mother and her baby. It offers an aesthetically pleasing contrast to the scenery that is the main motif of the photograph. If nothing else, it shows it's significance as a tourist destination. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 20:10, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Raven4x4x 04:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)